Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't know if this is new, but I'll post anyway.

I was in my local GW on Thursday and couldn't help but over hear one of the employees. He said that GW had lost the LotR license, if not on the very brink of losing it, and the Hobbit would be lucky to remain another year and a half max...

So whether everything is dropped after this, or rules stay in print with nothing new, I'm not sure. But I think it's fair to say our system won't grow much more...

At this point I think ire certainly safe to say we won't be seeing any more models produced. This month would have been a perfect time to finish off the range with the DVD release of the last film, but we got nothing. Sadly, as far as GW goes, it's game over. Last I saw the licence had actually been renewed until 2017, but I guess that could have changed.

More worrying is the rumour doing the rounds that this new Horus Heresy range from GW rather than FW will be replacing LotR on he shelves, while what's left of the LotR/Hobbit range goes Direct Only. Not a great loss for the LotR stuff as eBay is almost always cheaper if you're patient, but for the Hobbit stuff the 2nd Hand market is far less flooded, and the cheapest way to get it is online discounters. If it goes Direct Only, getting the Hobbit minis for anything less that RPP is going to be even harder. I suggest picking up anything you really want asap before that happens.

The biggest loss, though, will be the lack of exposure. At the moment, no matter how hard they try to sell you 40k or WFB, you can still see cool LotR minis in a GW window, walk into the store and leave with your first minis. That won't happen if the whole range gets pulled, and only those who are already aware of the game and go looking are likely to get into it.

The game will survive, thanks to it's very dedicated community, but I doubt that community will grow much once this happens, and many things that should not have been forgotten will be lost...

Hopefully someone else will pick up the rights too it and really make it shine.

It's a shame. I remember starting this game back in school, it's what got me into the hobby all together! I still have the original Fellowship, the metal ones. Never had the guts to paint them as they look so awesome I didn't want to ruin them!

It's true though that interest in the LoTR/Hobbit will probably diminish now the films are over. For me, watching the films etc. with friends was what got us in the mood to play the games again and again.

GW losing the license to Middle-earth would be the best thing to ever happen to it.

I know from talking to the Tolkien Estate that they are trying to have Saul Zaentz's license revoked for The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

The Tolkien Estate is of the opinion that Peter Jackson's oeuvre have nothing at all to do with Middle-earth, and that the sooner his works disappear into the ether the better.

Middle-earth would be better served with a line of miniatures that better fits the aesthetic described and depicted by Tolkien.

The games produced by GW are nothing particularly special in terms of a game, and other rules systems could be produced to replace them in an instant (Gripping Beast's SAGA system would work easily for Middle-earth, perhaps even better because it does not try to conflate unit tactics with skirmish behaviors).

And, even though Peter Jackson's design work is visually stunning, it isn't really appropriate for Middle-earth, which Tolkien described many times as being a more Dark Age world, than the High Middle-Ages depicted by Jackson.

It would be, again, relatively easy to replace Jackson's Weta Designs with others that were equally stunning, yet closer to what Tolken intended.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
GW losing the license to Middle-earth would be the best thing to ever happen to it.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree. It would mean the death of one of the best and most consistent ranges of miniatures in last 20 years (LotR mostly, here. The Hobbit range has some great stuff, but far more duds than LotR), and similarly one of the most fun and entertaining rulesets along with it. 'Realism' of the rules be damned, I'd say that as a game, LotR is possibly the best GW has ever done. It plays equally well with 5 or 50 models, is deep enough to be meaningful but light enough that it doesn't get bogged down, and very balanced, with the exception of a few Hobbit profiles.

Middle-earth would be better served with a line of miniatures that better fits the aesthetic described and depicted by Tolkien.

And, even though Peter Jackson's design work is visually stunning, it isn't really appropriate for Middle-earth, which Tolkien described many times as being a more Dark Age world, than the High Middle-Ages depicted by Jackson.

It would be, again, relatively easy to replace Jackson's Weta Designs with others that were equally stunning, yet closer to what Tolken intended.

MB

Would it, though?

Going purely by the book, most of the races men would be reduced to 'guys in chainmail with different colour livery', Elves would be 'slightly taller men with pointy ears', and Dwarves would be 'men but shorter and hairier'. Orcs would be more uniform/less varied, and Uruks would just be bigger Orcs. It might be more 'accurate', but I'm not sure what would make that inherently better than the current range, which, in terms of accuracy to the films that the line is based on, are pretty much perfect. Odd as it seems to say it, a 'true' Middle Earth army would be almost as generic as a Fantasy army could be to a casual fan.

With the current minis I can take one glance at a table and know who is fighting who, even if the minis are painted baldly in three colours. With a more 'accurate' selection, I'm not sure someone who hasn't studied the books in detail would be able to tell a Gondor from a Ronan army unless (and possibly even if) it was expertly painted and covered in the relevant livery/iconography.

I wouldn't worry about any of those things, nor be drawn in to pipe dream arguments. Clearly, none of that is going to happen, and the films were the best thing to happen for sales of the books, exposure of the IP to a wider audience and a bunch of other things that ever happened.

I have to agree with Paradigm here. Despite slight derailment towards the end the LotR system has imo overshadowed other games (save 40k + WHFB) and has done incredibly well for GW. However, it was never going to last forever but it definitely should have lasted longer.

I'm kinda hoping other people DON'T pick it up to be honest! GW's sculpts are/were fantastic and their rules really capture the mood. Whether it sticks to the exact description or not of Tolkien's work, GW have done an incredibly good job and the minis are everything I imagined the characters to be.

It will be a sad end to the era as I have played since it first came out, but I can safely say I'll look back on it with fond memories.

There'll pretty much always be a licencee for LotR games and models.

Future miniature game licences will pretty much be based on the PJ films' version of the IP, and even those that aren't will take both broad and specific design queues from the films in terms of look and feel. (Curved swords for elves, blockish weapons and architecture for dwarves, and the like) since that's now what LotR is in the public consciousness and not being a cheap licence, companies will not want to deviate from that as they're in business to make, not lose money. The GW ruleset won't go with the licence, though. It'll only live on in the books in the wilderness (and of course, scans and PDFs). Just as the Star Wars D6 and D20 systems have while the Star Wars IP has been relaunched by FFG as WHFRP 4th Edition. GW have pretty much retained the licance purely in order to sell out existing stock and act as a spoiler to others who might want to pick up the licance and run with it while The Hobbit is still in public consciousness ...and in case any new films within the Zaentz licence are announced in the next couple of years. Like a Legolas and Tauriel action/romcom spinoff or Shadows of Mordor: The Movie, or whatever.

Mithril has a separate licence for miniatures (not miniatures games), and so they'll probably just keep on doing what they have since forever. Once GW leaves the stage they might open up a little more, as they've been very careful over the past ...10+ years as GW is so litigious.

At this point, all I really need from GW is another couple of Grimhammer boxes to finish my Iron Hills army; everything else is either easily substituted or found cheaply on EBay.

As for the actual game content, there is already plenty of fan made material out there (our own BotFA supplement, 1st/2nd/4th Age mods, OR have a Ronan supplement in the works, not to mention KoW mods ect), and I only expect that to grow as GW support drops even more so than now. LotR is actually pretty easy to House Rule once you work out the core points formula, and there's no shortage of material to work with.

Coming soon: Codex: Bree!

 Captain Galenus wrote:
I'm kinda hoping other people DON'T pick it up to be honest! GW's sculpts are/were fantastic and their rules really capture the mood.

Well the dream would be to have the perry bros pick it up since they made all the good LOTR to begin with.

Talk about completely missing the point (not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point).

I did not say that the sculpts produced by GW were not good.

They are fantastic.

But they are not The vision of Tolkien, they are the product almost solely of Peter Jackson.

In fact, while watching the last three of The Hobbit films, for research on our documentary, I noticed that they displayed a disclaimed that in Hollywood (or the Film Industry as a whole) is a Giant Red Flag:

In last two of the films, the disclaimer is:

Inspired by the works of JRR Tolkien.

In the first film, the disclaimer is:

Based upon the works of JRR Tolkien.

In Film Speak, the former is:

"We completely made up a film, using someone else's IP, which has pretty much nothing to do with that IP."

In Film Speak, the latter is:

"We tried to use the IP we claimed as much as possible, but our writers wanted to add their own stuff whenever possible."

When you see a film, such as To Kill a Mockingbird you will see a much more straightforward version of this disclaimer:

"The Film Adaptation of.... X"

There, you will see a very straightforward adaptation of a novel or writer's work (Such as 2001: A Space Oddysey).

You might claim "Realism be Damned," but how many of you would be playing the game if it allowed for the Orcs to shoot Rocket Propelled Grenades at their opponents, or of the Gondorians had tanks, or could leap across 200 meter gaps to get to the other side of the battlefield.

As for GW "always" having a license for Middle-earth.... No.

The Tolkien Estate (with which I speak every now and then about the development of our documentary on the popular depiction of Tolkien's works) has made it very clear that they are working to End Saul Zaentz's, and thus Peter Jackson's association with anything suggestive of Middle-earth.

And considering that GW's current license will expire in 2017, and considering that Christopher Tolkien has left instructions to the Tolkien Estate about Peter Jackson being explicitly prohibited from touching any other Tolkien property (or anyone associated with Weta, or New Line Cinema - the list is exhaustive, and essentially puts a purity test against any new licenses being granted) this means that not only will there be no more movies from Jackson to support the miniature's line, yet the license fee will remain in the many millions of dollars from New Line.... It is doubtful that GW would even want to retain the license.

And then we can bury the Peter Jackson Era of Middle-earth, and move on to producers and creators who are not so eager to eviscerate (Christopher Tolkien's word) Tolkien's creations.

Despite people's protestations, there is such a thing as being closer to what Tolkien intended and NOT being closer to what Tolkien intended (i.e. Being further from what he intended).

People are free to imagine whatever they wish regarding Middle-earth. But this does not mean that what they imagine is what Tolkien imagined it to be (and he left some pretty explicit paintings and descriptions for much of it).

But they are not entitled to their own facts. Facts exist as facts regardless of anyone's desires or imagination. Tolkien, and his estate own the Facts regarding Middle-earth, and when they label something as Not Middle-earth then it isn't Middle-earth (And Peter Jackson's works have been so labeled).

Popular culture might identify them as such. But popular culture doesn't get to vote on what is an isn't, regardless of whether a creation is fiction or not. It is still the creation of a specific person, who left that creation to another to be its guardian and executor. That creator has the right to reject depictions of his creation as having nothing to do with that creation.

But.... I am likely wasting my time here, as I don't think people are understanding this distinction based upon the replies.

MB

ok, i know i've only started to post recently, but i've been on this forum and others like this for a long time.

but

i can not sit silently as someone spouts a clear agenda, without giving my voice to it, be it right or wrong.

to BeAfraid:

obviously, you have your own agenda.
it sounds like you are trying to get in good with the tolkien estate.
perhaps you started out with noble intentions.
but i would advise you to not come on to sites like this and insult things that people love.

i grew up in a time when tolkien's work could only be made in cartoon movies.
i will ALWAYS remember the first time i sat in a movie theater and saw THE BALROG on the big screen.
always.

i get the distinct hint, that the heirs to tolkiens estate want more.
more control, more power, more money, whatever.
that's all well and good.

j.r.r. tolkien did not have to share the stories he originally wrote for his son with the rest of the world
(and maybe, just maybe, that's why the son is so angry about all this)

but the father created a mythos that has inspired millions.
and some cheesy b-movie director managed to bring that vision to the masses.

the tolkien estate should not bite the hand that feeds it.
the son should not curse the love his father brought to millions.

could the works of j.r.r. tolkien be brought to life even better than they have been made?
sure.
the limitations are imagination and technology.
again, as a child, i grew up on some cartoon movies.
seeing SAURON swipe chunks of troops away on the big screen made me almost wet myself.
almost.

the future for tolkien's work is yet to be seen.
i'm sure there may be something out there that is created in the future
that will truly make me soil myself.

but,
that is no reason to condemn those that have been brought into the fold
from whatever source it was
that brought them to middle earth.
do not go the path of morgoth.

BeAfraid wrote:
Talk about completely missing the point (not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point).

I did not say that the sculpts produced by GW were not good.

They are fantastic.

But they are not The vision of Tolkien, they are the product almost solely of Peter Jackson.

I did not say you said they were bad. But you did say you'd be more than happy to see the 'fantastic' range of minis replaced with something that would be, to my mind, altogether more bland. I was just questioning why you would rejoice at a unique and iconic line being killed off so someone else could make something ultimately generic to the casual observer, just for the sake of closer adherence to a source material that the vast majority of people think has been superbly represented (for most people, LotR is the book-to-film adaptation that others are measured against, and those not versed/interested in minutae like the exact type of sword, pretty much a perfect representation)

You might claim "Realism be Damned," but how many of you would be playing the game if it allowed for the Orcs to shoot Rocket Propelled Grenades at their opponents, or of the Gondorians had tanks, or could leap across 200 meter gaps to get to the other side of the battlefield.

But they don't, do they? What they do is allow me to set up two armies, and have them fight with something more structured than making sound effects and knocking them over, which is all I ask. If I wanted 100% accurate military simulation, I wouldn't be playing a game with Orcs and Wizard for one thing. It's fun, easy to understand, and does a good job of providing an entertaining experience in a setting I love.

And then we can bury the Peter Jackson Era of Middle-earth, and move on to producers and creators who are not so eager to eviscerate (Christopher Tolkien's word) Tolkien's creations.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. A series of almost universally loved, exceptionally successful films that have become a solid part of popular culture aren't going anywhere fast, and I'd hazard a guess that no director or studio are even going to try to remake LotR within the next century. I, for one, hope they don't.

BeAfraid wrote:
Talk about completely missing the point
As for GW "always" having a license for Middle-earth.... No.

Not what I said. I said that there will always be LotR licences for miniatures and games floating around. Not that GW would hold them forever.

The Tolkien Estate (with which I speak every now and then about the development of our documentary on the popular depiction of Tolkien's works) has made it very clear that they are working to End Saul Zaentz's, and thus Peter Jackson's association with anything suggestive of Middle-earth.

Good luck with that.

And considering that GW's current license will expire in 2017, and considering that Christopher Tolkien has left instructions to the Tolkien Estate about Peter Jackson being explicitly prohibited from touching any other Tolkien property (or anyone associated with Weta, or New Line Cinema - the list is exhaustive, and essentially puts a purity test against any new licenses being granted) this means that not only will there be no more movies from Jackson to support the miniature's line, yet the license fee will remain in the many millions of dollars from New Line.... It is doubtful that GW would even want to retain the license.

Again, you completely miss the point. (see what I did there?)
Case in point: Original stories set within the Hobbit/LotR licences.
MIDDLE-EARTH: SHADOW OF MORDOR © 2015 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Developed by Monolith. © 2015 New Line Productions, Inc. © The Saul Zaentz Company. MIDDLE-EARTH: SHADOW OF MORDOR, THE HOBBIT, and the names of the characters, items, events and places therein are trademarks of The Saul Zaentz Company d/b/a Middle-earth Enterprises under license to Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved.
MONOLITH LOGO, WBPlay LOGO, WB GAMES LOGO, WB

And then we can bury the Peter Jackson Era of Middle-earth, and move on to producers and creators who are not so eager to eviscerate (Christopher Tolkien's word) Tolkien's creations.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Sorry.

But.... I am likely wasting my time here, as I don't think people are understanding this distinction based upon the replies.
MB

You might well be. But it's because you're not listening to or properly comprehending what's being said and instead are writing answers to comments that haven't been made.

Christopher Tolkien will pass soon. And the estate will become less and less hardline over subsequent years. I think we're much more likely to see a Estate-licenced, NLC/WETA-made Silmarillion Trilogy in the next couple of decades than a remake of LotR. In fact, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Disney buy the Middle-Earth IP outright at some stage in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

Coming soon: Codex: Bree!

Oh! I like cheese!

 Azazelx wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Coming soon: Codex: Bree!

Oh! I like cheese!

Hah, good one!

I hear Barliman Butterbur is completely OP!

...but deliciously buttery.

The Perry brothers is a GOOD idea. Kinda hoping they take it on now... Maybe GW wouldn't mind so much giving it to them?

The fact of the matter is there is a whole load more people out their who love the films than pour over all the books. LotR is a system that draws people in to wargaming because people can relate it to a multi million worldwide franchise. A minority of people would want to see book accurate minis than film accurate (it would be interesting to do a poll actually...) so it would be illogical to do that. Even the Tolkien's can clearly see that, as they are clearly an intelligent group of people!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Coming soon: Codex: Bree!

Oh! I like cheese!

Hah, good one!

I hear Barliman Butterbur is completely OP!

The Hobbits are 3pts per model and made in Finecast clampacks of two for £15...

Actually, no. The Tolkiens are offended as all get out by the gaming miniatures.

And they would prefer there to be NO gaming license, but they had no clue what Saul Zaentz would do with his license (which all current products stem from, not from the Tolkien Estate).

Tolkien, who lives through two World Wars and fought in the First, abhorred "Playing Soldier."

It is an area where the Professor and I would come into conflict over my behavior and participation in such a thing, but I completely understand his point in the matter (and it is a thing where I remain conflicted over my own participation in the gaming industry, especially after having lived through my own participation in a war, and then all manner of personal and urban violence in the form of my late-wife, who died as a result of her attraction to, and inability to control that violence).

As for "insulting something people love...."

Some people must have very thin skins if they took what I quoted Christopher Tolkien as having said, which I agree with, about the Films.

As I said, they are beautiful films.

But they aren't Tolkien as even people here have pointed out in their rush to defend the films.

The Films are the creation of Peter Jackson, and have only a passing resemblance to what Tolkien created.

If that is an insult? I am not entirely certain where your own priorities and agenda lie.

As for having my own agenda.... Yes.

To first produce a documentary about Tolkien with my partners in LA, and then eventually to hopefully work on whoever the Tolkien Estate decides will faithfully produce Tolkien's works in the 20's when Saul Zaentz's license (And thus New Line's) expires.

And, for all of you who are praising the films, you must not have much respect for Tolkien's work to call it "bland," "generic," or to think it needed the spectacle of tunneling worms, leapfrogging elves, or ten foot tall orcs in it to be "interesting" to an audience.

Tolkien's works, without the spectacularization of non-canon "technical fireworks" would likely stand on its own just as well as whatever it is that Peter Jackson has done.

As for the Tolkien Estate selling the rights to Disney, or New Line for the Silmarillion.

The Tolkien Estate is Primarily a group of academics, like myself, for whom no amount of money would sway their principles (99.99% of them are highly conservative Catholics who have an sizable hatred of Hollywood), and Christopher, as I have already said, has included in his will disposition of the remaining licenses and strictures about any use of them for film adaptations (which, to be precise, he has stated that ONLY "Film Adaptations" may be done, and not "Works based upon/inspired by" - these are technical terms which have specific meanings), which would require any scripts, screenplays, and productions meet with the approval of the Tolkien Estate.

This means... If someone does get the license for something like the Narn í Hîn Hurin, or the Lay of Lethian/Tale of Luthin and Beren that they could wind up making the entire production, only to have the Estate pull the plug over an editing dispute.

We have been negotiating our own works with the Tolkien Estate (getting permission, rather than just claiming Acadeic Use, since it is a Documentary), and they have been very clear about their disdain for the popular culture that has (their words) "Perverted the creation of JRR Tolkien." (I do not go quite that far, but I am obviously unhappy about Jackson's treatment of his works).

And... Outside of the gaming community, in the interviews we have done... Most of the people report being disappointed with the films if they had not read the books first, after then reading them.

You seem to think I am saying that you are committing a sin by liking the game, or the miniatures, or the films.

Which is not what I am saying at all.

I am simply saying:

The films are Peter Jackson's work. Not Tolkien's.

And yes... There is a bit of an insult to Tolkien in Jackson laying claim to Tolkien's name to promote the movies when so many of the most important parts of Tolkien's works have been so warped in their use by Jackson in making HIS movies while slapping Tolkien's name on it.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thisisit wrote:
ok, i know i've only started to post recently, but i've been on this forum and others like this for a long time.

but

i can not sit silently as someone spouts a clear agenda, without giving my voice to it, be it right or wrong.



i get the distinct hint, that the heirs to tolkiens estate want more.
more control, more power, more money, whatever.
that's all well and good

I have a lot more than a "hint" as to what the Tolkien Estate Wants.

They had to go to court to sue New Line to get the Few million dollars they got from the several Billion generated by the movies.

And Christopher has said in the one interview he gave on the matter that he would give it all back if he could un-do the movies.

This is an issue that isn't about gaming. It is about the deeply held beliefs of the Tolkien's, which have been insulted by Saul Zaentz, first, with the Rankin-bass animation (which is what brought me to Tolkien), and then with the hideous Ralph Bakshi production (and then another ® Rankin-Bass production), and finally Peter Jackson's works.

In exploring Tolkien's academic works, and his theological works, I discovered that there is a depth to Middle-earth that carries a very poignant significance, and is about things that were completely destroyed by Peter Jackson.

Most people are as ignorant of the existence of these thing in Tolkien's work as they are of the Rodannini Pietá by Michelangelo (another work of great Beauty and depth).

Yet what Peter Jackson did to Tolkien's works, in destroying these deeper and more difficult themes was no different than destroying the Rodannini Pietá. You might not have been aware of its existence, and even after its destruction, you might never be aware of what it was, and what it meant.

But this does not mean that there are others who are aware of these things; who are aware of what was not just lost, but destroyed in the process.

In the case of Jackson's films, the damage is not as permanent as having destroyed a priceless piece of art.

But it is a depiction that to those who are aware of that meaning is just as painful as having watched the actual destruction of a priceless artwork. And that the damages done by the perpetuation of the stereotype in the public and popular media will be lasting, and difficult to undo. Confusion and ignorance as to what Tolkien really created will persist.

I do not agree with A LOT of what Tolkien believed, and which he added to Middle-earth as a part of its creation (Just as I do not agree with almost everything Michelangelo or Raphael believed - yet I chose Raphael as my Senior Thesis in Art School when I was younger, doing studies of the figures he painted over while producing The School of Athen - but their works carry the same beauty as does Tolkien's).

Yet if his beliefs are not a part of his creation. If those beliefs, and all of the symbols of those beliefs, which he meticulously and diligently added to his creation are intentionally removed from his creation.....

In what way is it still the creation of Tolkien, any more than removing "The Spark of Life" from the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and replacing it with a Matt Groening Cartoon , would remain the work of of Michelangelo?

MB

You never learned to play well did you? And yes, clearly you and the four or five others whom think the LOTR movies where borderline heresy should take a chill pill, seeing how the films made an very long lasting impression on popular culture and such.
And I cant say I belive a word of the things you spew fourth, post proof of it and people may take your claims a bit serious.

BeAfraid wrote:

And, for all of you who are praising the films, you must not have much respect for Tolkien's work to call it "bland," "generic," or to think it needed the spectacle of tunneling worms, leapfrogging elves, or ten foot tall orcs in it to be "interesting" to an audience.

And yet, the fact is that simp!y by dint of having defined the modern Fantasy genre, LotR can so easily be seen as generic unless one accentuates aspects of the setting, as the films do. 'Accurate' otherwise, there's no confusing the Gondorians, Rohirrim or Easterlings of the film with each other or any other setting, whereas going by the book, their appearance could just as easily be something out of Terry Brooks' 'Shanarra, Paolini's Alagaesia or GRRM's Westeros or any other Fantasy setting you care to name. Yes, all of those copied the tropes LotR set down, but that doesn't get past the issue that in the post-Tolkie age, LotR needed to evolve to get back the unique identity it had upon publication.

As for Tolkien himself, I respect him as much as any author, no less than any but equally no more to any great extent, and as with any adaptation of author's work, I'm perfectly happy to see it altered if that means the end product is more interesting and enjoyable. Tolkien isn't God, and LotR is not the Best Book Ever Written (very far from it, in fact, and The Hobbit is frankly a bit rubbish as anything more than a bedtime story for children), and neither are sacred. I'd also add that the films weren't for the Tolkien family, they were made to bring enjoyment to the public that might not ever read the books, and in that regard, they are a resounding success.

At the end of the day, I'd rather a better adaptation of a source than a 100% faithful one.

BeAfraid wrote:

Yet what Peter Jackson did to Tolkien's works, in destroying these deeper and more difficult themes was no different than destroying the Rodannini Pietá. You might not have been aware of its existence, and even after its destruction, you might never be aware of what it was, and what it meant.

But this does not mean that there are others who are aware of these things; who are aware of what was not just lost, but destroyed in the process.

This reminds me of Phillip Pullman's response to being told that his work had been destroyed when the Golden Compass turned out to be nothing like his book, Northern Lights. He supposedly quirked an eyebrow, tapped a copy of the book, and said, 'What are you talking about? It's right here'.

The existence of derivative work in no ways detracts or destroys other existing work.

And Stephen Donaldson is better anyway.

 Trondheim wrote:
You never learned to play well did you? And yes, clearly you and the four or five others whom think the LOTR movies where borderline heresy should take a chill pill, seeing how the films made an very long lasting impression on popular culture and such.
And I cant say I belive a word of the things you spew fourth, post proof of it and people may take your claims a bit serious.

It is significantly more that four or five people who are upset by what Peter Jackson did to Tolkien's works. Go visit Quora, or an academic forum about Tolkien (or most Catholics who have read Tolkien) and you will discover they are not at all happy about the movies.

Again, you have no objective knowledge, and are making a biased guess, while we have been out interviewing people, trying to get a representative sample of the population from which we can draw a statistically significant representation of values and understanding of what is involved of the understanding of Tolkien's work (i.e. discover the exact level of knowldge and ignorance about his work).

And, again, just becauseany number of people are ignorant of the significance of a work of art (or even it's significance) does not make it any less horrific to those who Do understand the significance when they see that work of art destroyed in some fashion.

You know, what an "Appeal to Popularity" is?

The Bible also made a long lasting impression upon popular culture, as has the Koran (which brought us such wonderful things as thinquisition, or the Islamic Mahgreb, which destroyed the remnants of the Mediterranean Greco-Roman Civilizations, much as ISIS of the Taliban destroyed, or are destroying vastly important historical and artistic treasures as well), or various individuals who were extremely popular throughout history (Ghengis Khan, Caligula, Pope Leo X - The Borgia Pope, Jack the Ripper, Jefferson Davis, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fred Phelps), and who have had a "long-lasting impression upon popular culture."

I am pointing out the fallacy here, not saying that Jackson's Films are the literal equivalent of historical monsters.

But the fallacy remains. That citing a works' "lasting popular impression" has nothing at all to do with what was done to accomplish that impression.

As with everyone else who is oblivious to the significance that Jadkson destroyed with his creations, how can you accurately balance the positive contributions to society with the meta give ones?

This is like asking to give an account of an event about which you know either nothing at all, or very little.

I am not contesting that they have a lasting popular appeal. But so does Professional Wrestling, and it is the fear of serious Tolkien Scholars that lasting damage has been done to the understanding of Tolkien's work by the creation of these movies.

Also:

Why the defensiveness?

Why the hostility at seeing an accurate Film Adaptation of Tolkien's works brought to the screen?

Are you saying that you would not enjoy Tolkien's works without the additions of comic-book elements, and Superhero tropes thrown in?

Are you saying that Tolkien is boring? That his work is not good enough to stand on its own merit?

MB

Yes Tolkien are dull beyound end to read,a nd the hobbit is best suited as toilet paper to be honnest, and why should I care what some person that belives in a mythical figure like the Chrsitian god thinks about a book series?
And I would be cautious to assume what knowledge people sit with.
But in the end arguing with your type of person is a waste of time, seeing how you seem intent on showing your "superiour" mindsett down everyones throath

 Paradigm wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

And, for all of you who are praising the films, you must not have much respect for Tolkien's work to call it "bland," "generic," or to think it needed the spectacle of tunneling worms, leapfrogging elves, or ten foot tall orcs in it to be "interesting" to an audience.

And yet, the fact is that simp!y by dint of having defined the modern Fantasy genre, LotR can so easily be seen as generic unless one accentuates aspects of the setting, as the films do. 'Accurate' otherwise, there's no confusing the Gondorians, Rohirrim or Easterlings of the film with each other or any other setting, whereas going by the book, their appearance could just as easily be something out of Terry Brooks' 'Shanarra, Paolini's Alagaesia or GRRM's Westeros or any other Fantasy setting you care to name. Yes, all of those copied the tropes LotR set down, but that doesn't get past the issue that in the post-Tolkie age, LotR needed to evolve to get back the unique identity it had upon publication.

Again, this seemst of any that people are saying "Tolkien isn't good enough."

As for the recognition of the different people's, why is itthat every Scholr of Tolkien can cite legitimate and accurate references from Tolkien that would differentiate it's people's and nationalities with a ready ease, but you seem to think this not possible?

Is there perhaps something about Tolkien's work, of which you are unaware that points out these distinctions?

As for Tolkien himself, I respect him as much as any author, no less than any but equally no more to any great extent, and as with any adaptation of author's work, I'm perfectly happy to see it altered if that means the end product is more interesting and enjoyable. Tolkien isn't God, and LotR is not the Best Book Ever Written (very far from it, in fact, and The Hobbit is frankly a bit rubbish as anything more than a bedtime story for children), and neither are sacred. I'd also add that the films weren't for the Tolkien family, they were made to bring enjoyment to the public that might not ever read the books, and in that regard, they are a resounding success.

At the end of the day, I'd rather a better adaptation of a source than a 100% faithful one.

Again, this is saying nothing more than "I don't think Tolkien's work is good enough to stand on its own. Someone must adulterate it before it is acceptable."

How would you know if it is a better adaptations do you are not given a chance to have illustrated many of the deeper significances or symbolism that Jackson removed, mocked, or wholly destroyed?

You might not know of that significance at the time (like you might not be aware of the significance of the hand positions of Aristotle and Plato in Raphael's School of Athens (a Renaissance celebration of the rediscovery of the classical philosophers of antiquity).

Yet if someone were to recreate this famous painting, yet remove all of the clues and queues that Raphael placed in the painting to communicate to future generations the significance of these philosopher's rediscovery, you might find the recreation Thrilling.

But it would not only not be Raphael. It would lack the messages that Raphael communicated.

The issue is not about Tolkien being the greatest author on earth.

The issue is about his work being represented as HE would wish it to be represented. It is about appreciating a work of art for it's own sake, not some tarted-up recreation which ultimately removes everything important that the original artist included to begin with.

As you have said yourself: You don't think Tolkien's work is worthy of adaptation without adulteration. It is not good enough as it stands.

If that is what you think, then you should own that belief, and not try to apologize for it.

But if that is the case, then you also really can't call an adulterated adaptation of Tolkien's work, Tolkien's. It would be, as Peter Jackson accurately reports on his products: The creation of Peter Jackson, inspired by JRR Tolkien.

You apparently prefer the diluted, adulterated version better than the original, or the original would be worthy in its own right to stand on its own merits.

MB
P.S. I am intentionally using synonyms that are somewhat contentious in order to illustrate the basal meanings involved. They might lack subtlety, but they more accurately draw attention to the basic point. For example. Something that is not a 100% solution, in chemistry is said to be "Adulterated," or "Diluted."

BeAfraid, I think your points are very interesting despite the off-putting arrogance of your tone.

The Jackson films are film adaptations of Tolkien's work, just as the LOTR miniature's game is a tabletop adaptation of the work. They are a different content producers vision of the work, a derivative of the original work. And that's how it should be.

Tolkiens vision literally interpreted on the silver screen would be nigh-impossible to do, and unwatchable. The focus and tone of his books make for good books, but directly adapted would make extremely poor movies, because of the media differences between literature and cinema.

There's nothing wrong with adapting something from the past for modern audiences as long as you make sure to broadly stay in the themes of the original work, which Jackson was clearly very careful to do. Adding more derivative works to LOTR doesn't change the original work or devalue it in any way, it adds more to the mythos and gives more for people to enjoy.

 Trondheim wrote:
Yes Tolkien are dull beyound end to read,a nd the hobbit is best suited as toilet paper to be honnest, and why should I care what some person that belives in a mythical figure like the Chrsitian god thinks about a book series?
And I would be cautious to assume what knowledge people sit with.
But in the end arguing with your type of person is a waste of time, seeing how you seem intent on showing your "superiour" mindsett down everyones throath

v

I do not believe in a Christian God either (I write for several Atheist and Rationalist publications and websites,in fact).

But the fact remains that Tolkien, and Michelangelo, and Raphel, and Savvadore Dali, and H.R. Giger (just to name a few deeply significant artists) WERE/ARE devout believers in the Christian Myths, and those myths informed their work in very significant fashions.

If you are going to value something, then it is worth knowing what it is that your value, even if that knowledge is sometimes deeply offensive.

That is week one of Freshman Art Apprecition in College.

You are probably not an Art Student, so you might not be as invested in knowing what something is in order to appreciate it more fully: worts and all.

But there are Many people who do value these things about Tolkien's work, because they reveal a deeper understanding of the people, places, and events in the work of an artist. In this case Tolkien.

Yet apparently, the people here have such little faith in the value of Tolkien's work to stand on its own merits (no doubt because they have no knowledge or appreciation of something as simple as why a sword should be shaped a certain way, or why a particular word makes a difference at a specific place) that they'd would prefer it to be altered in some fashion, even if it destroys this significance of which they are ignorant in the process.

Tolkien wrote a short story in a collection of works know as Tales from the Perilous Realms about a painter, by the name of "Ningle" (as in "Niggling detail") who loved to paint Forest landscapes, yet was an appalling painter when it came to painting trees,yet the painter, Niggle, Excelled at the painting of the individual leaves of a tree . The story was titled Leaf by Niggle.

And, as Niggle painted his leaves, meticulously, one day he discovers that he has painted a marvelously detailed forest in the creation of individual leaves.

The story is one of Tolkien's few purely allegorical tales. Tolkien is Niggle.

The Forest Painting is Middle-earth.

Middle-earth is a painting, a tapestry that was created not with a huge sweeping vision, but by the niggling attention to millions of tiny details. And thus the destruction of any one of those details destroys countless others to which it is connected in the web of the forest.

I am completely at a loss regarding the defensiveness people have here regarding Jackson's movies as if the members here were responsible for their creation. Nor at what appears to be a perception of personal hostility.

But at least this one responder is honest enough to say plainly that he thinks Tolkien's works are trash.

What a strange thing for a person to say, and yet be so invested in a game that the person claims to be a product of that author.

MB

I'm going to add more because this is pretty interesting. This guy's view is pretty common when it comes to the "Ivory tower academic" members of the Tolkien fandom, as weird as it might seem, and I haven't really had a chance to argue against this head-on.

I think this comes from a misaligned view of the LOTR copyright, that they're the basic gatekeepers and masters of everything regarding the Lord of the Ring franchise. The copyrights and trademarks and the like are designed to keep a rightful creator not having other people make money off their work, not have them become the ultimate master of the "right" way of interpreting and seeing the work.

The Lord of the Rings, being fictional, is mine just as much as it is Christopher Tolkien's, or your's, anyone else's. It's part of the greater zeitgeist at this point. I can visualize a Lord of the Rings where Sauron was the good guy fighting for progress. I can visualize a modern-day telling, a porn parody, an ironic musical adaptation, or anything I want. Lord of the Rings could be set in the 1970s, and the Battle for the Black Gate could be a dance off in a disco if that's how I want it to be.

The other thing is the ludicrous idea that adding works (maybe works that aren't so scholarly or in line with the authors original vision) somehow devalues the original work. This is false, because the original work is in no way being modified. I could see the discontent if the books were later modified to fit the movies or something but they aren't. The books are the same as they were, and if you don't like the new media you can just ignore it and stick with the old stuff.

Congratulations! You have proven that you are at a complete loss when it comes to dealing with persons that dont share you elitis view on things, I enjoy the game not the books. As for the movies I have no real investment in them, but I get somewhat annoyed when you and your ilk comes along shouting from your ivory tower.

BeAfraid wrote:


As for the recognition of the different people's, why is itthat every Scholr of Tolkien can cite legitimate and accurate references from Tolkien that would differentiate it's people's and nationalities with a ready ease, but you seem to think this not possible?

Is there perhaps something about Tolkien's work, of which you are unaware that points out these distinctions?

The bolded part is the issue. Not everyone who wants to be entertained by the story has the time, ability or inclination to become a scholar of the works, so playing up the different visual clues for the sake of easy identification is important in the medium of film. Yes, you could watch a true-to-book LotR and know the warriors with the horse on their banners are Rohirrim while the similar guys with the white tree emblem are Gondorians, but it's far easier to know, especially in the immense melees, that the guys in silver plate are from Gondor while the Rohirrim are wearing leather armour and capes.

This goes double for the minis, which is where this discussion began: on the table I can tell an unpainted Gondor and Rohan arm apart from six feet, whereas if both were just guys in chainmail until you get into minutiae you'd be hard pressed to make that distinction, scholar or not.

Again, this is saying nothing more than "I don't think Tolkien's work is good enough to stand on its own. Someone must adulterate it before it is acceptable."

How would you know if it is a better adaptations do you are not given a chance to have illustrated many of the deeper significances or symbolism that Jackson removed, mocked, or wholly destroyed?
...

As you have said yourself: You don't think Tolkien's work is worthy of adaptation without adulteration. It is not good enough as it stands.

If that is what you think, then you should own that belief, and not try to apologize for it.

But if that is the case, then you also really can't call an adulterated adaptation of Tolkien's work, Tolkien's. It would be, as Peter Jackson accurately reports on his products: The creation of Peter Jackson, inspired by JRR Tolkien.

You apparently prefer the diluted, adulterated version better than the original, or the original would be worthy in its own right to stand on its own merits.

But to most viewers, the point of the thing is not the depth of allegory or message that you'd need to be a scholar of Tolkien to even be familiar with, it's about the story and the spectacle and being entertained, and the films do all of that perfectly well and lose nothing for the additions/alterations/'adulterations' made. Even if it were possible to make a version that maintained all that is great about the films while still keeping everything by the book (which I doubt), I see no way in which it could achieve the goal of entertaining the viewer and telling a good story better than the current ones, simply because as films they are about as close to perfect as you can get. The average viewer is watching to see the adventures of the Fellowship and a healthy dose of orc-slaying, flavoured with the best battle scenese ever committed to film and a breathtaking array of visuals, and doesn't give two gaks whether or not we're seeing what Tolkien intended or getting the full depth of his vision. Sounds selfish, but that's the way it is.

As for Tolkien's work not being 'worthy', that's not what I'm trying to say (although the only area where he is truly exceptional is in creating a setting, in everything else he is really nothing overly special). What I am trying to say is that there is no need to replace or dismiss the films just because they are not 'accurate', when they are still superlative works of entertainment that, to most, give a perfectly satisfactoryc presentation of LotR. Perhaps, unlikely as I believe it is, a more faithful version could be made that would be just as good, but why would you when the existing iteration fulfills its purpose perfectly well? To the majority, it ain't broke, and therefore doesn't need fixing.